This is the eighth contest for this year's set. This week's challenge: Design a Landmark!

Submission Rules

• Each participant may submit one card per challenge.• Participation in previous or future challenges is not required to participate in this one.• Submit your card to me via this forum's messaging system. Submissions made after each week's deadline cannot be accepted.• Each card you submit must have a name, a cost, a list of types, and the exact wording that should appear on the card. Also include a brief description of any special design considerations (e.g., Stash having a unique back), but do NOT include any other information, such as strategic commentary or examples about it would play.• The name you give your card will appear on the ballot. If multiple cards with the same name are submitted, I will differentiate them with letters in a randomly chosen order, e.g. [Card Name] A, [Card Name] B, etc. Cards themselves will likewise be listed in a random order on the ballot.• I will accept revisions to your contest entries provided they are submitted to me before the deadline. If you submit a revision to an entry you have previously submitted to me, resubmit your revised card(s) in their entirety.• Only submit cards that are your own design.• You may submit cards that have been previously posted here in this forum, including those that have been refined by the community as a whole, provided you can still claim that the central conceit of the card -- and the majority of its final version -- is yours.• A single card might conceivably qualify for multiple challenges within this series. If your card doesn't win the first challenge you submit it to, you may submit it for any and all future challenges (until it wins), provided the card fits those challenges. This is particularly pertinent for cards that don't win the first of two slots for a large expansion, although depending on which card does win, your card may not qualify for the second challenge.• Do not disclose your submissions publicly, either in this thread or elsewhere!

Except where specified, you may not submit cards combine certain mechanics from multiple expansions. The idea is that you could simply slot the cards into their respective sets without needing components or rules specific to another set. Specifically:

• Duration cards may only be submitted as candidates for a Seaside or Adventures slot.• Potion-cost cards may only be submitted as candidates for the Alchemy slot.• Cards that use VP tokens or cost $7 or more may only be submitted as candidates for a Prosperity or Empires slot.• Cards that use Coin tokens and cards that use overpay may only be submitted as candidates for the Guilds slot.• Cards that use Ruins (Looters) and cards that use Spoils may only be submitted as candidates for a Dark Ages slot.• Traveller cards, Reserve cards, and cards making use of player Tokens may only be submitted as candidates for an Adventures slot.• Gathering cards, cards that use Debt, and Split piles may only be submitted as candidates for an Empires slot.

Many mechanics are fair game for any submission. The following is an incomplete list.

• Victory/Action and Victory/Treasure hybrid cards.• Cards that allow you to choose an ability from a list.• Cards with on-buy, would-gain, on-gain, and on-trash abilities.

Challenge #8: Landmark

Design a Landmark that would fit into the Empires expansion. Such a non-card could have one or more of the following qualities:

• Gives VP tokens on meeting specific conditions during play.• Starts with or accumulates VP tokens.• Gives VP bonuses or penalties during endgame scoring based on the composition of your deck.

Dunno about the rest of you, but if I submit anything, I'll have to spend a few minutes re-reading all the official Landmarks to make sure mine isn't too similar.

I feel like balancing concerns are a lot lower and/or easier to solve for Landmarks because each is a single effect that everybody has from the start. Even if it's major, there's no worry about one player winning the split or anything. I guess for Landmarks that have a limited number of VP, you have to be careful not to make it such that one player can drain all the VP quickly and easily. Thoughts from others on this?

Dunno about the rest of you, but if I submit anything, I'll have to spend a few minutes re-reading all the official Landmarks to make sure mine isn't to similar.

I feel like balancing concerns are a lot lower and/or easier to solve for Landmarks because each is a single effect that everybody has from the start. Even if it's major, there's no worry about one player winning the split or anything. I guess for Landmarks that have a limited number of VP, you have to be careful not to make it such that one player can drain all the VP quickly and easily. Thoughts from others on this?

I think landmarks come down to how fun they are. Not adding anything is more important than being OP, see rats and fortress with tomb.

I feel like balancing concerns are a lot lower and/or easier to solve for Landmarks because each is a single effect that everybody has from the start. Even if it's major, there's no worry about one player winning the split or anything. I guess for Landmarks that have a limited number of VP, you have to be careful not to make it such that one player can drain all the VP quickly and easily. Thoughts from others on this?

I wouldn't mind it if Landmark were viewed more generally as game-changing perma-event instead of a game-changing perma-event that provides VPs.It's kinda like with Gathering. Sure, all official Gathering cards accumulate and return VPs but why be so restrictive and don't view a Gathering card more generally as a card that accumulates and returns something .

I wouldn't mind it if Landmark were viewed more generally as game-changing perma-event instead of a game-changing perma-event that provides VPs.It's kinda like with Gathering. Sure, all official Gathering cards accumulate and return VPs but why be so restrictive and don't view a Gathering card more generally as a card that accumulates and returns something .

So, possibly have a Landmark that gives players an additional ability, or that affects turn order, or game end conditions, or something like that? Or maybe something like Mountain Pass, but which lets you bid to gain a card of your choice or something? Personally, I would be in favour of it.

I wouldn't mind it if Landmark were viewed more generally as game-changing perma-event instead of a game-changing perma-event that provides VPs.It's kinda like with Gathering. Sure, all official Gathering cards accumulate and return VPs but why be so restrictive and don't view a Gathering card more generally as a card that accumulates and returns something .

So, possibly have a Landmark that gives players an additional ability, or that affects turn order, or game end conditions, or something like that? Or maybe something like Mountain Pass, but which lets you bid to gain a card of your choice or something? Personally, I would be in favour of it.

I'm against it, but only because Donald X. is against it and I think the Treasure Chest contests should stay true to that. I asked specifically about this shortly after Empires was released:

No guarantees that Gathering cards will ever appear outside of Empires, but should they remain strictly tied to VP? Gathering with coin tokens seems like an obvious thing that could work.

For me Gathering cards want to be things that Defiled Shrine is specifically dodging putting tokens on. So, cards that put VP tokens on their pile. "Gathering with coin tokens" runs into the problem of interacting with Trade Route, but that aside, would get a different type if it happened.

You could just make cards that modify the rules. I considered it way back when; it's a thing I've done in many games. I didn't do it because Dominion has kingdom cards filling that rule; they change the rules plenty. Dominion doesn't need other rules-changing cards. I considered it again later and still didn't want them.

But I do have Events and now Landmarks. Events can change the rules, but only via the Event-buying mechanism, which is like buying a card without the card; it felt like a reasonable extension. Landmarks can change the rules, but only in these VP-making ways. While they are each a step towards just having randomizer cards that change the rules, they still both try hard to stay within limits, to only affect the game in a way best done via these mechanisms. In general the best way to change the rules in Dominion is still to have kingdom cards that do different things.

Interesting, I didn't know that.I still think that events that change global rules would be better as Landmarks. For example Delve would be mildly simpler if it were a Landmark that said "Silver costs 2$".On the other hand Landmark does have its green background which implies VPs so Donald's argument definitely makes sense.

Interesting, I didn't know that.I still think that events that change global rules would be better as Landmarks. For example Delve would be mildly simpler if it were a Landmark that said "Silver costs 2$".On the other hand Landmark does have its green background which implies VPs so Donald's argument definitely makes sense.

Silver costs 2 seems more problematic and confusing. I think all landmarks should directly give or take VP. It makes it easier to remember, is there's several green things it would be annoying to sort them out based on what they do.

Interesting, I didn't know that.I still think that events that change global rules would be better as Landmarks. For example Delve would be mildly simpler if it were a Landmark that said "Silver costs 2$".On the other hand Landmark does have its green background which implies VPs so Donald's argument definitely makes sense.

Silver costs 2 seems more problematic and confusing.

"Silver costs 2 instead of 3" is definitely simpler and also interacts with cost reducers. The Event way of Delve to implement it seems slightly less natural to me.

Quote

I think all landmarks should directly give or take VP. It makes it easier to remember, is there's several green things it would be annoying to sort them out based on what they do.

I'm definetly against this, mainly because Donald has said no.

Sure, a perma-Event that changes global rules but doesn't hand out VPs could just be called something else than Landmark or Event.

Interesting, I didn't know that.I still think that events that change global rules would be better as Landmarks. For example Delve would be mildly simpler if it were a Landmark that said "Silver costs 2$".On the other hand Landmark does have its green background which implies VPs so Donald's argument definitely makes sense.

Silver costs 2 seems more problematic and confusing.

"Silver costs 2 instead of 3" is definitely simpler and also interacts with cost reducers. The Event way of Delve to implement it seems slightly less natural to me.

Quote

I think all landmarks should directly give or take VP. It makes it easier to remember, is there's several green things it would be annoying to sort them out based on what they do.

I'm definetly against this, mainly because Donald has said no.

Sure, a perma-Event that changes global rules but doesn't hand out VPs could just be called something else than Landmark or Event.

Landmarks are specifically tied to VP, not just cards that might happen to make you lose VP. You don't count Gold as a VP card because it might let you buy a province. The things I want from a landmark are (In order):

1) Specifically gives . Whether when scoring, through tokens, or with curses doesn't matter. But if it just has some effect that might happen to effect your score (Volcano), I'm won't vote for it.2) Doesn't give too much . If it gives you 10 each time you play an action, then I won't vote for. I don't like when landmarks make the dominant strategy (Rats/Fortress/Tomb).3) Makes a difference in the game. If it gave 1 for something at the end of the game it would hardly ever make a difference. 4) Isn't to similar to something already done. Giving you 1 each time you buy an action would be to similar to Colonnade and Defiled Shrine.5) It's not already an outtake. This is self explanatory, if Donald found a good reason not to have then I won't vote for it.

Now that being said, there is still a lot I would like to see from landmarks. Giving you curses automatically, for playing treasures, and more landmarks like tomb all sound interesting.

You don't count Gold as a VP card because it might let you buy a province.

Aqueduct disagrees with you.

Quote

5) It's not already an outtake. This is self explanatory, if Donald found a good reason not to have then I won't vote for it.

Not all outtakes totally suck. In the secret history Donald actually tells that some stayed for quite some time during playtesting. For example the Curser that hands out a VP token at the same time could be done as a Landmark. As Cursers are already fairly strong this seems like a good idea to make them slightly less powerful in some games. And if you add a VP restriction per player another dimension opens up, namely that late Curses come without the extra VP but of course you wanna junk your opponent as early as possible.

So, big surprise, a quick sketch of a Landmark based on an outtake (of an Action card)!

You don't count Gold as a VP card because it might let you buy a province.

Aqueduct disagrees with you.

Quote

5) It's not already an outtake. This is self explanatory, if Donald found a good reason not to have then I won't vote for it.

Not all outtakes totally suck. In the secret history Donald actually tells that some stayed for quite some time during playtesting. For example the Curser that hands out a VP token at the same time could be done as a Landmark. As Cursers are already fairly strong this seems like a good idea to make them slightly less powerful in some games. And if you add a VP restriction per player another dimension opens up, namely that late Curses come without the extra VP but of course you wanna junk your opponent as early as possible.

So, big surprise, a quick sketch of a Landmark based on an outtake (of an Action card)!

The basic ideas would work, but an almost word-for-word reproduction is what I am talking about. This is at the bottom of my list so it's not a very high priority. For instance, if "2 for every card costing " came up I would not vote for it.

As for aqueduct, that's an edge case. And even then, you still need to buy a victory card for you to get it. All cards can be counted as VP cards in games with gardens.

From the discussion, I gather that it is a fan-made Landmark already posted somewhere which doesn't actually give any VP. Rather, it does something that could potentially cause you to gain or lose VP cards, in the same way that Gold may be used to buy a Province? That's what it sounds like to me. If that's the case, then Landmark isn't the right type for it according to official criteria.